Reliable Sources and Unusual Claims (was <offensive slams>)
nagasiva
<much flammage omitted for your reading pleasure>
nagasiva re josh geller after his claim to be the avatar of Ganapati Deva:
#> very interesting, coming as it does from someone who has castigated
#> and ridiculed many individuals over the course [of] time in alt.magick
#> and other newsgroups for engaging such personal identifications
#> (there was a Pendragon, quite a few elves and dragons, all of whom
#> josh saw fit to shit on). it seems rather duplicit or hypocritical,
#> and should be pointed out as such.
"Kaala" <ka...@xiqual.com>:
# ...there are changes that take place in one's self. What I was two or
# three years ago, I'm not now. So yes, over the course of time, I have
# done things that contradict each other....
I wasn't talking about you.
self-contradiction of such a blatant type (slamming other people for
doing something and then taking it up oneself) is indicative of an
unreliable source of information, at least on ethics and self-
reflection if not on other subjects.
# ...Change is a sign of growth and progress. Staying the same is
# a sign of stagnation....
agreed, but change preceded by acid toward what one is changing TO
is a rather common mark of instability, hypocrisy, and charlatanry.
# You, of course, have remained absolutely consistent. Anything
# you've said or done in the present time is exactly like that
# which you've said and done five years ago....
actually I am very consistent, even while I grow and change. but
I'd rather not turn this thread into a pissing contest, thanks.
# ...you claim to have [Kali] speaking to you. This is no
# different than claiming that one *is* such an entity.
I think this is an outrageous statement. people are ostracized
from many traditions of the African diaspora and from quite a
few Neopagan communities for claiming to BE the god or orisha
or loa that is being worshipped by that community. it is
considered disrespectful at least, a sign of serious problems
or a ridiculous sham at most. I know my goddess as Kali. I make
no claims of absolute certainty regarding Her identity, or
that what is happening to me is more than a voice from a
fragmented portion of my own subconscious mind. I have left
a great deal of room for doubt in my speculations, and this
is far different than emphasizing an importance to the world,
especially in the wake of having strongly criticized those
who have done likewise.
# By questioning the credibility of Josh's statement out of hand,
# with no attempt to actually experience it, all you ultimately
# do is question your own statements along these same lines.
that's the point, Kaala, it isn't "out of hand", but is in the
context of a number of years of hearing him critically and in
many cases rudely challenging people for the EXACT SAME THING.
combine the unlikelihood of the claim with this contextual fact
and you have the appearance of either a joke or a hazard zone.
# What if he's right...?
what, you're falling for Pascal's Wager too? fucking let him
demonstrate how right he is to us, rather than expect us to
kow tow to him rather than dish him a heaping tablespoon of
the EXACT kind of response he has seen fit to dispense for lo
these many years. I won't go so far as he has, but I want him
to stand by his actions and words and admit of his previous
errors at least before taking him at all seriously given this
apparent (if not merely jesting) change of heart and spirit.
# ...as far as I'm concerned, all of this is just Shiva talking
# to itself anyhow. It doesn't matter to me if I *am* the avatar
# of Bhairava and Josh is the avatar of Ganesha and Kali is
# whispering in your ear.... So what? Perhaps he's right.
I'm not making any sort of judgement about anything except the
context from which the comment comes and the outlandishness of
the statement itself. josh geller has called too many people
into question (their maturity, their status, their knowledge,
etc.) and in too disrespectful a manner to allow hypocritical
expressions on his part to pass without a comment, criticism
or skeptical inquiry. I would hope that at least HE would see
the value of challenging such a patently egotistical claim.
# Perhaps you might even question what is meant by "avatar".
one uses the terms in the conventional sense, expects to be
misunderstood, or makes it clear what it is one means in order
to communicate effectively. this has been one of the hot points
for josh's own rhetorical style in alt.magick for years, and I
do see its value. call it karma, Kaala.
<'he said/she said', revising the original claims made omitted>
# ...I *do* think that Bhairava is attainable to any and all who
# *want* to be Bhairava (cf. Vijnanabhairava, etc.)....
and that makes a lot of sense to me and always had. I've supported
similar claims about elves and dragons and Pendragons, much to
chagrin of many in alt.magick who would have preferred that such
discussion not take place there on account that 'it confuses the
newbies'. I never agreed with that attitude and in my agreement
with you I continue to support the kind of mystical attainment
and ego-transformation that may be implied by your statement.
# ...Josh is having a certain sort of realization right now.
that's wonderful for him. perhaps it's about time. that doesn't
mean that I'll just forget everything he's said and done during
the time that I've known him, however. it doesn't make what
appears to be hypocrisy vaporize.
# Perhaps you might actually learn about it and DO IT before
# making judgments about the experiences of others.
your continued implications about who and what I am say more about
you than they will every say about me, Kaala. I'm not making any
judgements about the experience of others, this is your projection
as are all the other projections you have seen fit to have placed
upon me in your illogical defense of your friend. as I have already
made clear, I'm just noting what I see is hypocrisy and outlandish-
ness, especially from someone well-known for lambasting hypocrisy
and outlandishness. I may be mistaken, I don't claim the Truth.
#> this is a far cry from merely talking
#> to deities by whatever method, and given the rudeness which he
#> has dished out to people making similar or lesser claims, it is
#> quite odd and his condition is deserving of careful consideration.
# He's going through a change, too. Perhaps this is why he keep
# periodically disappearing and reappearing.
all these 'perhaps' are certainly possible, but there are OTHER
'perhaps' which should also be taken into consideration, especially
by those who may understand josh as some sort of authority.
claims about cosmic specialness and power are danger signs from
what I have experienced (in a number of cults, amongst a variety
of unstable and dangerous magicians and mystics, etc.).
# I don't see any "careful consideration" on your part....
I'm asking questions nicely. I'm listening to what you have
to say and responding to it carefully.
# And as far as the statement he made about the dog stage...
# YOU AGREED WITH IT! You both did, in fact, and even
# went so far as to post quite a bit on the laudable nature of
# dogs. In other words, he was right. Is he rude for calling
# a dog a dog?
I'm surprised. I thought I made it quite clear that I dispute
the usefulness and relevance of hierarchical spiritual-
assessment systems and consider those who use them to typically
be engaging in a kind of one-upsmanship in order to make them-
selves feel better about who they are.
I made light of the rudeness by shifting the paradigm from
orthodox 'pasu'-stage arrogance to the glorification of what
it means to be a dog OUTSIDE of such ridiculous standards.
I don't find it valuable to put myself above dogs or any
other animals because we are different. I never have. I
prefer to commune with them and learn their wisdom, inclusive
of dogs. I should note that one of my best friends going on
11 years is a dog (black) who is almost constantly with me.
#> ...the audacity of such a belief. gods talk
#> to human beings all the time, by all accounts. it is relatively
#> rare (and often disputed) that someone claims to be the incarnate
#> avatar of not just an incarnation of VISNU (the typical god whom
#> is ascribed such manifestations as Rama, Krishna, and others),
#> but SIVA. it is an outlandish and pompous claim. ridiculous.
# Lunatics often walk about dressed in robes and carrying staves
# and claiming that the gods are speaking with them. Many
# psychotics hear such voices.
sure, and some who walk around dressed in robes and carrying staves
don't make claims yet may well be talking with gods. I've proven to
myself that immediate appearance is an insufficient indicator.
# It is relatively rare, and disputed, when someone makes a
# claim to have the ear (and the counsel) of such a being.
not in my experience. many religious I've met talk about their
interaction with and/or counsel that they've received from gods,
whether the Christian God, Allah, Jesus Christ, Siva, Kali,
Mary, Odhinn, etc., etc. check out the Neopagan and African-
diaspora sometime. I guess I hang out in more religious circles.
<advice I didn't ask for, like all the previous, omitted>
# Such claims are no more ridiculous than Josh's claim.
that is correct, they are LESS ridiculous, because they don't
posit a primary speciality as 'the avatar of'. if he misspoke
(mistyped) that's one thing, but I haven't heard that this is
the case (only your apology that his text was misunderstood
despite its evident clarity).
# Shiva and Ganesha are both prone to being tricksters and
# playing their pranks from time to time.
whoopie for them. I hope you will forgive me for having resistance
to identifying single individuals as their sole avatars. I'm very
surprised that you're defending such a contention, however it may
have come about during a time of 'realization'.
# Your claim that *you* know when they are or aren't is every bit as
# ridiculous as the claim that they might be doing it right now.
if I had made the claim I'd agree. but this is just another projection.
<bits about people saying they are a god omitted, I never said different>
# think is a ridiculous impostor might actually *be* Shiva.
Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!
Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evul Book, II:59-60
#> the personal expressions regarding specialness in the cosmos are
#> somewhat valuable in assessing the condition of the source of the
#> statement, especially where magical exploits and information
#> about them are concerned. there are loads of loonies in the
#> occult community. those who go off on power-trips are some of
#> those of whom to be most careful on account of their tendency to
#> oppress and then implode taking others with them on their
#> destructive hellride.
# And Josh just bared something for which he must now suffer the
# slings and arrows of armchair know-it-alls and cynics of all
# sorts.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, let's all groan sorrowfully at the horrible
doubt now levelled upon the Great Doubting Ogre. you must be kidding.
neither have I sent "slings and arrows" nor have I claimed to know it
all or be cynical. I've always considered pleasant skepticism
concerning unusual claims to be respectful and well-placed. I hope
you will see that this is what I am here representing.
# How do you know, [nagasiva], that *you* are not a "loony on a
# power-trip"?
I don't know it, as I prefer to remain among the followers of the
Old Boy. however,
1) I am not making unique claims about myself.
2) I am open to respectful inquiry about claims I do make
and respond seriously to them in public.
3) I am not trying to obligate others in association with
some special claimed status.
4) I try not to conduct myself arrogantly, encouraging a
a diversity of opinion even if I strongly challenge an
opinion another expresses.
5) I do not monopolize sonic conversation.
6) my friends and family respect me even when we disagree.
7) I actively discourage chelas, followers, devotees,
and even those who would defend me in public against
the occasional and foolish ad hominem that comes my way.
I think that the path of ego-inflation has its merits, but there
are hazards along the way for both those who tread it and those
who may reside nearby. power-trips is one of these hazards.
# How do you KNOW that Josh isn't, at the moment, THE avatar of
# Ganesha? Who can say?
I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Occam's Razor does not seem
to make this a reasonable conclusion to MY mind, and I have seen
no evidence to support what seems an unusual supposition. without
evidence I have no basis to affirm the hypothesis. I DO have what
I consider to be evidence indicating the contrary, however, so I
express my doubt concerning the claim made.
#> ::bark bark!:: dogs don't eat their own feces, silly. show's how
#> much you know about dogs. and fucking on the lawn isn't a "goal
#> in itself" so much as is the wonderful freedom from concern over
#> 'what the neighbors will think', enjoying the thrill of grass on
#> the back and sunshine on the body. it is liberation itself.
# Ah, so it's not "fucking in public".... But dogs do fuck in public.
to a dog the notion of 'public' does not seem to exist.
# ...OK, so you don't eat your own feces... you devour the feces you
# find. The siddha-yogins teach a valuable principle ... you are
# what you eat.
::bark bark!:: then I am many different things.
# So what is the goal, then?
this is like the question 'so how did everything come to be?' the
premise may well be flawed. I don't agree that there is a necessary
(especially singular) goal. too simple. I like the question more if
you say 'so what is your goal, then?' I'll answer it that way....
I prefer serendipitous romps and occasional adventures with subgoals
than any singular and defined termination or achievement point.
Kali tells me that I'm learning Wizardry, so I guess the outcome
may be Wizardness. we'll see, She doesn't predict the future. :>
# So, are you one of "the most powerful mages" controlling the cosmos
# from your armchair?
1) I don't have an armchair, and I tend to dislike human furniture.
2) I don't know how to compare 'power' among mages except by
trials of battle. my preference for style is that of Simon Iff,
(cf. Crowley) so I can't be sure of my relative power.
3) I tend to think that the 'controlling the cosmos' bit is a
personal perspective with a skewed bias -- becoming part of
the Way, the most powerful mages may well appear from the
outside and the inside to be controlling the cosmos, but
this may be an illusion on account of their relative position.
# If not, then why should anyone take heed of what you say?
you must have been ignoring many of my essays in the past. I don't
abide with imperatives like 'should'. ignore me if it pleases you.
that is what you have done for years and I didn't complain, only
mentioned at first that I was sorry to see it happen because I
usually enjoyed our exchange, just as I am enjoying this one.
thank you for responding to me again. I have missed it and count
you among those with whom I enjoy conversing.
#># Shutting up and going away is a useful exercise.
#>
#> usually I find that those who recommend it would benefit from it most.
#> something like Richard Bach's "we teach what we most need to learn".
# Ah... so then everything you've said up to this point is what you
# really don't know....
am I teaching it, or is it just my opinion which I offer for debate?
I think there is a difference. strong and repeated recommendations
(so as to be completely IDENTIFIED with the phrase) seems to me more
like instruction, profession. taking one's own advice is valuable.
# All the material you posted about neo-Tantra recently, for
# example, is equally an example of this principle, right?
is it? perhaps, if it is instruction. I was hoping that you or some
other person who has direct experience with traditions of Tantra Yoga
would assist me in refining the comparison somewhat. in another thread
you posted something about the beneficent side of Tantra Yoga and its
flexibility and motives. I think I made it clear that I greatly
appreciated your expression and encourage you to continue its like,
perhaps to correct any misperceptions I may have. I am only an egg.
# Am I the unique avatar of Bhairava? No, I doubt it. Is Josh the
# avatar of Ganesha? I don't think so... but only he and Ganesha
# really know.
if he isn't and you don't think he is, then what is the value of
defending his statement? why don't you just say 'I disagree and
think nagasiva and catherine's expressed skepticism is warranted,
though at times overly hostile.' and be done with it?
# I've seen you pay lip service to the "suspension of disbelief"
# in the past. Why is this instance somehow different?
where it concerns the special status of one who has insulted me
repeatedly, been hypercritical of people who claim special status,
and generally thrown his weight around manipulating and insulting
people ('for their own good' he apparently thinks), I will not
choose to 'suspend my disbelief', thanks. it's a quick route to
self-destruction which I find repulsive at the present.
it seems to me that there is a world of difference between the
suspension of disbelief and a friendly skepticism that I feel
I am bringing to this discussion (neither claiming knowledge
nor being willing at this time to forget the trespasses of the
past). I hope that you will come to understand my precautions,
providing them yourself, or explain why josh's claim that you
and he are the avatars of specific Indian gods is not unusual
and of the type he has previously ridiculed.
blessed beast!
nagasiva
--
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
aikeena
[snip]
> # What if he's right...?
>
> what, you're falling for Pascal's Wager too? fucking let him
> demonstrate how right he is to us, rather than expect us to
> kow tow to him rather than dish him a heaping tablespoon of
> the EXACT kind of response he has seen fit to dispense for lo
> these many years. I won't go so far as he has, but I want him
> to stand by his actions and words and admit of his previous
> errors at least before taking him at all seriously given this
> apparent (if not merely jesting) change of heart and spirit.
>
Actually, as a matter of fact I gather that he has in fact offerred to
demonstrate exactly how right he is .. for both you, Tzimon, and one of
your friends.
Of course, I'm just the new kid on the block so no doubt you'll ignore
me.
> # ...as far as I'm concerned, all of this is just Shiva talking
> # to itself anyhow. It doesn't matter to me if I *am* the avatar
> # of Bhairava and Josh is the avatar of Ganesha and Kali is
> # whispering in your ear.... So what? Perhaps he's right.
>
> I'm not making any sort of judgement about anything except the
> context from which the comment comes and the outlandishness of
> the statement itself. josh geller has called too many people
> into question (their maturity, their status, their knowledge,
> etc.) and in too disrespectful a manner to allow hypocritical
> expressions on his part to pass without a comment, criticism
> or skeptical inquiry. I would hope that at least HE would see
> the value of challenging such a patently egotistical claim.
>
You've been nursing this one too long.
Heck, I'm the perpetual beginner and even I see that.
Let it go, that would be a good thing.
Please.
I'm not too proud to ask nicely.
Heck I'm not too proud to beg.
Please.
[snip]
> # ...Josh is having a certain sort of realization right now.
>
> that's wonderful for him. perhaps it's about time. that doesn't
> mean that I'll just forget everything he's said and done during
> the time that I've known him, however. it doesn't make what
> appears to be hypocrisy vaporize.
>
> # Perhaps you might actually learn about it and DO IT before
> # making judgments about the experiences of others.
>
> your continued implications about who and what I am say more about
> you than they will every say about me, Kaala. I'm not making any
> judgements about the experience of others, this is your projection
> as are all the other projections you have seen fit to have placed
> upon me in your illogical defense of your friend. as I have already
> made clear, I'm just noting what I see is hypocrisy and outlandish-
> ness, especially from someone well-known for lambasting hypocrisy
> and outlandishness. I may be mistaken, I don't claim the Truth.
>
Well, technically he's only hypocritical if you're right about him being
wrong.
The assumption that he is wrong would tend to constitute a judgement.
[snip]
>
> # I don't see any "careful consideration" on your part....
>
> I'm asking questions nicely. I'm listening to what you have
> to say and responding to it carefully.
>
Right, just like the joke about hte Polish mindsweeper, eh?
> # It is relatively rare, and disputed, when someone makes a
> # claim to have the ear (and the counsel) of such a being.
>
> not in my experience. many religious I've met talk about their
> interaction with and/or counsel that they've received from gods,
> whether the Christian God, Allah, Jesus Christ, Siva, Kali,
> Mary, Odhinn, etc., etc. check out the Neopagan and African-
> diaspora sometime. I guess I hang out in more religious circles.
>
Do you intend to be totally hopeless?
Religion, argh. What a pain the arse.
> <advice I didn't ask for, like all the previous, omitted>
>
> # Such claims are no more ridiculous than Josh's claim.
>
> that is correct, they are LESS ridiculous, because they don't
> posit a primary speciality as 'the avatar of'. if he misspoke
> (mistyped) that's one thing, but I haven't heard that this is
> the case (only your apology that his text was misunderstood
> despite its evident clarity).
>
The truth that one does not understand becomes a deception; illusion is
but a truth one has not yet understood.
[snip]
> # How do you KNOW that Josh isn't, at the moment, THE avatar of
> # Ganesha? Who can say?
>
> I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Occam's Razor does not seem
> to make this a reasonable conclusion to MY mind, and I have seen
> no evidence to support what seems an unusual supposition. without
> evidence I have no basis to affirm the hypothesis. I DO have what
> I consider to be evidence indicating the contrary, however, so I
> express my doubt concerning the claim made.
>
Me and Josh had a thread discussion about Occam's Razor in which we
disagreed, but I think my point prevailed. The thing is that Occam's
Razor isn't as simple as it appears. Or rather it is as simple as
possible, but not simpler.
I suggest you don't cut yourself with it, as you appear to be doing.
[snip]
>
> # So what is the goal, then?
>
> this is like the question 'so how did everything come to be?' the
> premise may well be flawed. I don't agree that there is a necessary
> (especially singular) goal. too simple. I like the question more if
> you say 'so what is your goal, then?' I'll answer it that way....
> I prefer serendipitous romps and occasional adventures with subgoals
> than any singular and defined termination or achievement point.
> Kali tells me that I'm learning Wizardry, so I guess the outcome
> may be Wizardness. we'll see, She doesn't predict the future. :>
>
>
Well, Brahmin awoke himself from the cosmic slumber and brought the
world into being as a waking dream. That's what I hear anyway.
And to be quite honest, I rarely take anything a goddess says to me on
face value whether or not she happens to be mortal or immortal.
It's not real smart.
> # So, are you one of "the most powerful mages" controlling the cosmos
> # from your armchair?
>
> 1) I don't have an armchair, and I tend to dislike human furniture.
> 2) I don't know how to compare 'power' among mages except by
> trials of battle. my preference for style is that of Simon Iff,
> (cf. Crowley) so I can't be sure of my relative power.
> 3) I tend to think that the 'controlling the cosmos' bit is a
> personal perspective with a skewed bias -- becoming part of
> the Way, the most powerful mages may well appear from the
> outside and the inside to be controlling the cosmos, but
> this may be an illusion on account of their relative position.
>
Interestingly, I do have an armchair... a beautiful padded, plush, one
complete with swivel and levers controlling height, seat back tilt
angle, non-squeaking oiled wheels, and variable arm-rest extension that
cost a great deal of money. I've had it for going on eight years and
take it with me where ever I move, which is usually far and often.
The thing is, I almost never ever ever get a chance to use it though it
sits readily available in my room by my desk.
I'm too busy.
But I do luxuriate in it in the about once a month (that would be very
often) that I get to use it... and I keep it to remind me of what I give
up.
And it's really straight-forward on how to judge power relative among
magi. Quite intuitive. An easy way is to survive a few of duels, you
learn quick that way.
To a certain extent, the relationship seems to have a linear
relationship. That is if one is about twice as 'strong' as someone else,
one has about twice the % probability of overcoming them given a
probability distribution normalized to unity.
That is for say magus A twice as strong as magus B then the % of success
in any given opposed task is 66% for A and 33% for B and 1% for an
intermediate outcome. Though in practice, the spread of intermediate
outcomes is larger.
I did some basic experiments in this regard, because I duel fairly
'often' (too often if you ask me) and it was a very interesting
question.
Of course, for large variations one would expect the functions to go
non-linear... but the relationships held under field trial and simple
experiments for ratios of up to 12:1 in the field and 5 to one inf the
experimental setting.
[snip]
> # I've seen you pay lip service to the "suspension of disbelief"
> # in the past. Why is this instance somehow different?
>
> where it concerns the special status of one who has insulted me
> repeatedly, been hypercritical of people who claim special status,
> and generally thrown his weight around manipulating and insulting
> people ('for their own good' he apparently thinks), I will not
> choose to 'suspend my disbelief', thanks. it's a quick route to
> self-destruction which I find repulsive at the present.
>
> it seems to me that there is a world of difference between the
> suspension of disbelief and a friendly skepticism that I feel
> I am bringing to this discussion (neither claiming knowledge
> nor being willing at this time to forget the trespasses of the
> past). I hope that you will come to understand my precautions,
> providing them yourself, or explain why josh's claim that you
> and he are the avatars of specific Indian gods is not unusual
> and of the type he has previously ridiculed.
>
> blessed beast!
> nagasiva
Let it go. It is clear that you have become attached.
This is not good. If you were thinking clearly, I think you would see
that too.
Use your free will - you don't have to do anything because of what josh
has done- right or wrong.
Be a man, not a dog.
Don't get me wrong, I like dogs quite a bit more than I like most
people.
But in this case, it is not sufficent.
I would not have said anything, but this is foolish and unproductive in
the extreme.
Let it go already.
aikeena
catherine yronwode
>
> 49990324 IIIom Hail Ganesh! Hail Siva!
>
> <much flammage omitted for your reading pleasure>
<and some non-flammage ommitted for bandwidth; also, i have rearranged
the order of a few quotes, for clarity. >
> nagasiva re josh geller after his claim to be the avatar of Ganapati
> Deva:
>
> #> very interesting, coming as it does from someone who has castigated
> #> and ridiculed many individuals over the course [of] time in
> #> alt.magick and other newsgroups for engaging such personal
> #> identifications (there was a Pendragon, quite a few elves and
> #> dragons, all of whom josh saw fit to shit on). it seems rather
> #> duplicit or hypocritical, and should be pointed out as such.
I might add that not only has Josh trashed people who have claimed
spacial spiritual status, he also has reveled in ridiculing people who
have legally changed their names for dedicatory or magical purposes. He
habitually refers to them by their birth names, as if he is somehow
"outing" them. I don't know what name is to be found on Tzimon
Yliaster's social security card or driver's licence or checking account
(Josh seems to think it is Brian Seitzmann, and so it may be), but i do
know that tyagi nagasiva is the only name to be found on the personal
and legal identity-papers associated with tyagi nagasiva. It's not a
screen name, folks -- it's his actual name. So why does Josh do this? I
don't know -- but i know how it looks to me: It looks disrespectful and
mean-spirited. And disrespectful mean-spiritedness is definitely NOT an
attribute of Ganesha. Quite the contrary.
.
> "Kaala" <ka...@xiqual.com>:
> # ...there are changes that take place in one's self. What I was two
> # or three years ago, I'm not now. So yes, over the course of time, I
> # have done things that contradict each other....
>
> I wasn't talking about you.
>
> self-contradiction of such a blatant type (slamming other people for
> doing something and then taking it up oneself) is indicative of an
> unreliable source of information, at least on ethics and self-
> reflection if not on other subjects.
I agree: Unless the person admits that a change has taken place, there
is no reason to believe the "new direction" is the truth. An explanation
was not forthcoming in this case.
> # ...Change is a sign of growth and progress. Staying the same is
> # a sign of stagnation....
>
> agreed, but change preceded by acid toward what one is changing TO
> is a rather common mark of instability, hypocrisy, and charlatanry.
NOT agreed upon by me!!!!
Change *may* be a sign of growth. Change *may* be a sign of progress.
And growth *may* be a sign of progreess. But change may *also* be a sign
of shrinkage. Change may *also* be a sign of disintegration. Growth may
*also* be a sign of disease.
Staying the same *may* be a sign of stagnation. Staying the same may
*also* be a sign of fidelity and loyalty.
It is very important, when discussing philosophical matters as deep as
these, to not mistake the map for the territory, and to never accept
embedded premises.
In this case, Tzimon claims that it is possible that Josh has changed.
He further embeds the premise that change is "a sign of growth and
progress" [presumeably toward a goal] -- and therefore concludes that
this change in Josh is a sign of growth and progress on Josh's part.
In short, Tzimon's premises about change, growth, and progress are being
presented as a factual statement about Josh.
And with that, i cannot agree.
My failure to agree is not a blanket disagreemnt:
I do not disagree that Josh can change. I do not disagree that change
can be a sign of growth (in a spiritual sense). I do not disagree that
change can be a sign of progress (but toward what goal is unclear here,
and i am not sure that Tzimon's concept of the goal of spiritual
practice is the same as mine in any case).
Why, then do i not agree? Because in rejecting the embedded premises, i
must then look for other "signs" that can be represented by change (e.g.
hypocricy, instability, decay) and determine whether Josh's change is a
sign of those. Furthermore, i am not sure that Josh HAS changed: i only
know that he now claims something that contradicts his former behaviour.
But Josh, unlike Tzimon (and this is said with no disrespect intended
toward Tziomon!) has a puckish sense of humour. This may all be a jest.
> # You, of course, have remained absolutely consistent. Anything
> # you've said or done in the present time is exactly like that
> # which you've said and done five years ago....
>
> actually I am very consistent, even while I grow and change. but
> I'd rather not turn this thread into a pissing contest, thanks.
Tzimon, trying to pull tyagi into a logical fallacy is a waste of time.
I want to avoid a pissing contest, too. Let's just say that all of us
change, from time to time, but some of us do so within fairly consistent
boundaries. But whether tyagi or you have or have not changed is not the
point. This is about Josh, And none of us can speak for him.
Tyagi is not the only one who remembers Josh's past harshness to others
who have claimed special spiritual status. There is, in fact, an entire
web page devoted to people's theories about why Josh tells folks to
"shut up and go away," theories ranging from the fondly amused to the
outrightly angry. If Josh has changed, let HIM say so. We who have
functioned as his erstwhile punching bags deserve to know whether he's
safe to play with now, if he is, so to speak, a kinder, gentler Josh.
(I, for one, would welcome it, for i have always felt him to be soulful
at the core.)
> # ...you claim to have [Kali] speaking to you. This is no
> # different than claiming that one *is* such an entity.
>
> I think this is an outrageous statement. people are ostracized
> from many traditions of the African diaspora and from quite a
> few Neopagan communities for claiming to BE the god or orisha
> or loa that is being worshipped by that community. it is
> considered disrespectful at least, a sign of serious problems
> or a ridiculous sham at most. I know my goddess as Kali. I make
> no claims of absolute certainty regarding Her identity, or
> that what is happening to me is more than a voice from a
> fragmented portion of my own subconscious mind.
Tzimon, your statement above is easily the most outrageous one in this
whole sorry thread. Tyagi gives a few counter-examples, and although it
not necessary to add to them, i really want to do so:
Have you heard about or read the autobiography of Bhagavan Das? Born
Michael Riggs in Laguna Beach, California, he is the holy man whom Baba
Ram Das (ne Richard Alpert, PhD) met in India and made the subject of
the popular book "Be Here Now." Alan Ginzberg also wrote poetry
testifying to Bhagavan Das' sanctity. In Bhagavan Das' autobiography
(which i think is called "I'm Here Now" or something like that), he
tells the story of his spiritual changes. I may have events a bit out of
order (it's been a while since i read the book and i don't own a copy),
but i am not adding or subtracting to the seqence. It tells me important
things about "change" as a "sign of [spiritual]growth and progress" and
it also provides a cautionary tale about the real differences between
hearing a voice or seeing a vision and believing oneself to be an avatar
of a diety:
Raised a Lutheran in a conventional middle-class American family,
Bhagavan Das went to India in the early 1960s and met a guru named Neem
Karoli Baba, under whose guidance he made great progress on the path of
bhakti asceticism. Karoli eventually died and Das was forced to return
to the US when his visa expired in the late 1960s. Although he was a
celebrity on the spiritual-tour circuit, due to Ram Das' promotion and
also to his beautiful singing of the names of god (he does have a
remarkable voice), he was spiritually bereft without a guru and drifted
aimlessly until he attached himself to the Tibetan lama Tarthang Tulku.
Tulku, then at the height of his popularity as a spokesperson for
authentic Tibetan Buddhism, was an alcoholic who was barely able to get
through the day without massive doses of booze, and so Das became
disillusioned with him. Upon leaving Tulku's sphere of influence, he
drifted for a while --
[Interlude One: Ask yourself, were all of these changes on Bhagavan Das'
part symptoms of growth? Were they symptoms of progress? How can you
tell?]
-- until Alan Ginzburg contacted him to tell him the good news about a
new guru, Joya, a woman who was channeling deceased Indian gurus and
creating quite a stir on the East Coast.
Joya was a New York Jewish housewife who had gone to Jack LaLane's
exercise classes to learn hatha yoga so she could lose weight -- but
somehow the breath-work she was assigned led her to see visions of
Indian gurus and to proclaim herself a spirutal channeler or medium of
their messages. By the time Bhagavan Das joined her as a disciple, she
was a self-made priestess of Kali. In a short while she had "progressed"
to the stage of her first apotheosis and she began channeling the words
and speech of Kali. Her next apotheosis came -- as expected -- when she
told her followers that she was "the incarnation and avatar of Kali." By
this time she had a cult going, and commanded a small legion of
thuggees, so called. But, of course, one growth-and-progress-apotheosis
leads to another and before too long, she declared that she WAS Kali
period.
At that point Bhagavan Das felt that she was on a power trip. He tried
to get away from her, to quit the organization that surrounded her. He
was not spreading hostile rumours about her; he just wanted to leave.
She sent her thugs, her fanatical followers, to his house and they beat
the shit out of him.
[Interlude Two: Ask yourself, were all of these changes on Joya's part
symptoms of growth? Were they symptoms of progress? How can you tell?]
Wounded both physically and spiritually, Bhagavan Das fled back to
California, where he threw away all the artifacts accumulated in his
Asian travels and experienced a sudden and visionary conversion to
fundamentalist Christianity, complete with a full-blown mystical
experience of the imminence of the crucifixion of Christ. During this
time he resumed the use of his birth name, living a conventional life as
Michael Riggs, a used car salesaman (at the Serramonte Auto Mall, for
all y'all home-town folks!). In time, the Christian path too lessened in
intensity for him, and then a young woman named Kelly appeared in his
office and told him that he "had to" return to Kali-worship or there
would be an earthquake. He had a brief affair with her, but she went
nuts and tore his office apart, breaking things and smashing computer
equipment. She ended up being hospitalized on a psych ward --
[Interlude Three: Ask yourself, were all of these changes on Kelly's
part symptoms of growth? Were they symptoms of progress? How can you
tell?]
-- but a week later, the Loma Prieta earthquake struck, and Bhagavan Das
took this as a sign that he was destined to resume his Kali-worship in
the Indian tradition. He now lives near Middletown, California, and
chants the names of God. His current guru is Amaji, and when he speaks
of her, tears of happiness well up in his eyes. She ... *she* ...SHE is
The One.
The point is this: changes do not always signify a straight line of
progressive growth, and folks who proclaim themselves avatars are not
always capable of being trusted.
> # ...Josh is having a certain sort of realization right now.
Please, Tzimon, don't speak for Josh unless he is incapable of speaking
for himself. I, for one, bear him no grudge, but neither do i consider
you to be his spokesperson.
> # Perhaps you might actually learn about it and DO IT before
> # making judgments about the experiences of others.
>
> your continued implications about who and what I am say more about
> you than they will every say about me, Kaala. I'm not making any
> judgements about the experience of others, this is your projection
> as are all the other projections you have seen fit to have placed
> upon me in your illogical defense of your friend.
Tzimon, the fact that tyagi questions Josh's sincerity does not mean
that tyagi is ipso facto a poseur himself. Surely you can see that. You
cannot browbeat people into accepting Josh as the avatar of Ganapati
Deva under pain of their enduring your public criticism of their lives.
You have no authority over anyone. You know virtually nothing of what
tyagi has done in his life. And in the end, spirituality itself is too
subjective for you to be the arbiter of who gets merit-badges.
> # He's going through a change, too. Perhaps this is why he keep
> # periodically disappearing and reappearing.
>
> all these 'perhaps' are certainly possible, but there are OTHER
> 'perhaps' which should also be taken into consideration, especially
> by those who may understand josh as some sort of authority.
> claims about cosmic specialness and power are danger signs from
> what I have experienced (in a number of cults, amongst a variety
> of unstable and dangerous magicians and mystics, etc.).
> # I don't see any "careful consideration" [of Josh's situation] on
> your part....
>
> I'm asking questions nicely. I'm listening to what you have
> to say and responding to it carefully.
[in another thread, Tzimon wrote]:
> A good friend has withdrawn himself into an elephant-shaped chrysalis.
> As is the nature of such cocoons, its hard to say what will come out
> of it. I can only wait around to see. And perhaps mourn it just a
> little... such things are never easy, and I can't help but empathize.
>
> Om namo ganapati
I have a great deal of compassion for Josh. I sense that you are trying
to explain something about him to us between the lines, but i don't know
what it is. Having never met Josh, i only know him as a blustery,
inconstantly rude and friendly, rough-edged, knowledgeable net-presence.
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Those are the fruits he has shown
me.
I do not seek to limit him to a repetition of his past repertoire of
behaviour. In fact, as he emerges from what you call his "chrysalis," i
encourage him to shine -- i welcome more gentleness and open-hearted
cheer from him, more time spent passing along books and sharing good
food with friends, more cosmic dances and respectful conversations with
his equals, more signs of his dedication to, if not his incarnation of,
Ganesha the Wise and Beneficent, opener of the way.
> # And as far as the statement he made about the dog stage...
> # YOU AGREED WITH IT! You both did, in fact, and even
> # went so far as to post quite a bit on the laudable nature of
> # dogs. In other words, he was right. Is he rude for calling
> # a dog a dog?
This is specious. I wrote, and i quote (at length):
Josh:
> > They are still basically at the Dog stage.
Me:
> And you and Tzimon are at...what? The "hero" stage? I suppose you
> are -- for you surely seem to be clomping about heroically, thumping
> your chests, brandishing the rag-tag weaponry you have scavanged
> from those who have gone before.
>
> Hurray for the dogs of this world -- faithful and loyal, simple in
> desire, never destroying the ecological niche upon which they ,
> depend eating shit when they can't find game, copulating freely in
> public view, snuggling up together in puppy-piles for warmth against
> the chill of winter.
>
> Shame on the heroes, who measure "progress" by the caste system and
> lay waste to nature and to the weak. Big puffed-up armour-plated tin
> men clanking around their battlefields raping women and slaying
> infants, neuresthenic yogis creating a battlefield in their own
> bodies by stuffing cotton gauze down their gullets in the pursuit of
> siddhis and "self-mastery" -- what is the difference between the
> two? And who cares how many medals such "heroes" pin on their
> chests, self-awarding and mutually-awarding themselves bonus-points
> for "progress"? It's hollow. It's a sham. It's nothing but
egomania.
I did not agree that i was a dog. I tore apart the entire Indian
guru-driven scheme of ranking peoples' spirituality -- so like the
despicasble Aryan caste systtem!!! -- and took my stand outside its
disgusting confines, based as they are upon the grotesque premise that
animals-not-of-our-species are inferior, that killer-soldiers are great,
and that gods are better than all. What a load of bollocks! It's the
Mahabharata in spades: hero-males ride into battle atop servant-animals
to kill and kill and kill and kill, and the best killers of all are
revealed to be the gods, who are distinguishable from men mainly by
their superior weaponry!
Give me karezza sex-mysticism any day over that hierarchical
my-kung-fu-is-better-than-your-kung-fu version of tantra yoga --
especially when it is being dished out in the name of Ganesha by a man
such as Josh, who is so well known for his years of verbal cruelty to
innocent passersby on the net that it almost seems as if he lives for
the opportunity to waylay the young, the newbie, and the weak and slam
them into the ground with the force of his vitriolic condemnations.
Ganesh indeed, you say! And expect me to believe it?
And you, what an ox you are, misquoting me when i can simply go back and
grab my own text and demonstrate that i never agreed with Josh that i am
a dog. How can you hope to win an argument -- much less engage in civil
dialogue -- with tactics as base as these?
Josh was rude to me (nothing new, despite the "changes" you claim for
him) and rather than dispute his rudeness, i foreswore all
identification with the shoddy hierarchical system upon which his
rudeness was based, the Indian custom of ranking people's spiritual
development as animal, male-soldier, or god. You pretended to take this
as my acquiecence. Far from it, Tzimon. And shame on you for trying.
And tyagi's sarcastic response ("bark bark") you also took for
acquiesence...how daft of you! How humourless!
> #> ::bark bark!:: dogs don't eat their own feces, silly. show's how
> #> much you know about dogs. and fucking on the lawn isn't a "goal
> #> in itself" so much as is the wonderful freedom from concern over
> #> 'what the neighbors will think', enjoying the thrill of grass on
> #> the back and sunshine on the body. it is liberation itself.
>
> # Ah, so it's not "fucking in public".... But dogs do fuck in public.
>
> to a dog the notion of 'public' does not seem to exist.
And again, i wonder what the heirarchs seek to gain by this strange
identification of tyagi and me with dogs.
> # ...OK, so you don't eat your own feces... you devour the feces you
> # find. The siddha-yogins teach a valuable principle ... you are
> # what you eat.
>
> ::bark bark!:: then I am many different things.
Lately, he's been pasta. Tonight -- asparagus and shrimp quesadillas!
> # So what is the goal, then?
>
> this is like the question 'so how did everything come to be?' the
> premise may well be flawed. I don't agree that there is a necessary
> (especially singular) goal. too simple. I like the question more if
> you say 'so what is your goal, then?' I'll answer it that way....
> I prefer serendipitous romps and occasional adventures with subgoals
> than any singular and defined termination or achievement point.
[...]
> I thought I made it quite clear that I dispute
> the usefulness and relevance of hierarchical spiritual-
> assessment systems and consider those who use them to typically
> be engaging in a kind of one-upsmanship in order to make them-
> selves feel better about who they are.
What he said.
> I made light of the rudeness by shifting the paradigm from
> orthodox 'pasu'-stage arrogance to the glorification of what
> it means to be a dog OUTSIDE of such ridiculous standards.
> I don't find it valuable to put myself above dogs or any
> other animals because we are different. I never have. I
> prefer to commune with them and learn their wisdom, inclusive
> of dogs. I should note that one of my best friends going on
> 11 years is a dog (black) who is almost constantly with me.
And, again, what he said, and in spades. You see, Tzimon (and Josh),
folks like us -- people who value the natural world, who live with
animal friends for long years, who study the science of biology -- we
simply cannot accept the paradigm that places animals as spiritual
"inferiors" to military men. The very idea is laughable.
> # It is relatively rare, and disputed, when someone makes a
> # claim to have the ear (and the counsel) of such a being [as kali].
>
> not in my experience. many religious I've met talk about their
> interaction with and/or counsel that they've received from gods,
> whether the Christian God, Allah, Jesus Christ, Siva, Kali,
> Mary, Odhinn, etc., etc. check out the Neopagan and African-
> diaspora sometime. I guess I hang out in more religious circles.
My word, yes! Hang around in alt.religion.orisha, Tzimon, if you want to
know how common and undisputed it is to participate in religious
activities centered on verbal communication with the gods!
> # Such claims are no more ridiculous than Josh's claim.
>
> that is correct, they are LESS ridiculous, because they don't
> posit a primary speciality as 'the avatar of'.
> # a ridiculous impostor might actually *be* Shiva.
>
> Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!
> Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
> Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Evul Book, II:59-60
heheheheh.
> # And Josh just bared something for which he must now suffer the
> # slings and arrows of armchair know-it-alls and cynics of all
> # sorts.
>
> AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, let's all groan sorrowfully at the horrible
> doubt now levelled upon the Great Doubting Ogre. you must be kidding.
> neither have I sent "slings and arrows" nor have I claimed to know it
> all or be cynical.
Who suffered "the slings and arrows of arm-chair know-it-alls" here?
Tyagi and i, whom Josh claimed were at the spiritual level of dogs ...
or tyagi, who merely doubted that a man as cruel as Josh is the avatar
of a notably kindly deity?
To hell with the "slings and arrows" and with questions of whose
feelings were hurt the worst -- let's settle this matter with "the
fruits" proof: If Josh *is* an avatar of Ganesha, let's see him express
that god's friendly and cheerful disposition and act as a bestower of
blessings. It's that simple.
> # How do you know, [nagasiva], that *you* are not a "loony on a
> # power-trip"?
>
> I don't know it, as I prefer to remain among the followers of the
> Old Boy. however,
> 1) I am not making unique claims about myself.
> 2) I am open to respectful inquiry about claims I do make
> and respond seriously to them in public.
> 3) I am not trying to obligate others in association with
> some special claimed status.
> 4) I try not to conduct myself arrogantly, encouraging a
> a diversity of opinion even if I strongly challenge an
> opinion another expresses.
> 5) I do not monopolize sonic conversation.
> 6) my friends and family respect me even when we disagree.
> 7) I actively discourage chelas, followers, devotees,
> and even those who would defend me in public against
> the occasional and foolish ad hominem that comes my way.
8) And his dog likes him, too!
(Sorry, that was a joke; i know from sad personal experience that making
light of such matters while in the presencee of Tzimon is unsafe, but
the rest of you may smile.)
> # How do you KNOW that Josh isn't, at the moment, THE avatar of
> # Ganesha? Who can say?
I can! I do! Here and now: "I know and i can say that Josh is not the
avatar of Ganesha." There may be some aspects of Ganesha in his body
type -- but the Ganesha i have worked with in meditation and prayer is a
kindly being, neither curt nor arrogant. He is revered by millions for
his ability to remove obstacles and to open the way to good fortune by
granting fine times, plenty of food, the wisdom of book-learning, good
health, and all good luck. He is offered cakes, candy, and fruit, and
his statues miraculously drink milk from spoons and saucers, a
delightful demi-miracle that brings a smile to my face. As a child he
was so happy and self-confident that he played with and braided together
the nagas of Siva as they lay upon the Fearsome One's breast. So secure
was he in his perpetual safety and well-being that he poked his chubby
finger into Siva's deadly third eye, and laughed when it blinked at him
-- a blink that could have destroyed ten thousand worlds! This lovely
elephant child, this wise elephant man, needs no defender, for none can
oppose him. He is harmless and unharmed. He is benevolent for no other
reason than that it pleases him to be so.
And Josh? Much as i wanted him to be my friend and thought him to be my
equal, i have learned over the years that he is unreliable; he has a
sense of humour, true, but he is so quick to give offense, so quick to
speak ill of strangers, so nasty in his put-downs, so arrogant in the
assumptions that he can rank the spiritual attainment of people he has
never met that i consider him a dangerous person to know. He is neither
a helper nor a trickster -- he is a being half-troll and half-scholar,
and that alas, is all he is to me.
When i got together with tyagi last year, i was given, for the first
time in years, the opportunity to be driven around the Bay Area to visit
people. (I cannot see well enough to drive and tyagi discarded a
many-year vow against driving to become my chauffeur). The first two
people i wanted to meet, believe it or not (it's true, so believe it),
were you, Tzimon, and Josh Geller. Not because i look up to either of
you as gurus -- i am not the follow-the-leader type -- but because i
have enjoyed your writings. I thought it would be fun to talk to you in
person, to meet you both. Tyagi told me, to my discomfort, that he had
had serious differences with both of you...and that he thought you'd not
take kindly to friendship with one who was known to be his mate. But i,
old-time hippie communard and Jewish intellectual that i am, thought
that these differences were trivial -- mere net-debates between
respected equals and colleagues.
Well, he was right: Tzimon took to trashing me in the newsgroup, and
then Josh did the same, and here the two of you are, smugly calling us
dogs and shit-eaters while pleading that we nust show special
consideration for Josh's current round of "changes" as he purportedly
becomes the avatar of Ganapati Deva.
Tzimon, i never have meant to run afoul of you -- i have even sent you
gifts -- but we seem to clash over and over again, and it often comes
down to your failing to see any humour in the exchange of ideas. You are
continually on guard, defensive, prepared for attack. I have had enough
experience with this mind-set in others to know that when dealing with
what i call a "chronic vigilante," trying to lighten the conversation
with a smile will not work. The smile is taken as sarcasm or weakness,
or both. As with tyagi's mis-fired "bark bark" comment, you see my small
jests as a sign of fragility and you pounce on me like a terrier on a
bone, claiming victory in battle. The victory exists in your mind only,
but so be it. We cannot be friends, although i regret this, because you
are a sincere person, a deep person, and a compassionate person in many
ways. If you ever need my help, feel free to call upon me. I wish you
every success imaginable, except in battle.
Josh, the loss of the possibility of friendship with you is even more
difficult for me to accept. We have had pleasant email correspondence at
times, and i have greatly enjoyed your subtle wit and your way with
words. Whatever is happening to you now, i hope it is enjoyable, for you
deserve to have a good time in life. To you i make the same gift-offer i
did to Tzimon when he spoke of having seen the benifecnt, quiet side of
Siva for the first time: tyagi and i are in the business of importing
Indian devotional items and i would be very happy to send you a lovely
selection of excellent gilded prints of Ganesha for free, just because i
like you. Send me your snail mail address by private email and i'll get
a package of them off to you. No strings are attached to this offer;
acceptance of it need not imply a softening of your heart toward anyone.
> # So, are you one of "the most powerful mages" controlling the cosmos
> # from your armchair?
>
> 1) I don't have an armchair, and I tend to dislike human furniture.
True, He sits on the floor most of the time. He's too tall, thin, and
bony for conventional furniture.
> 2) I don't know how to compare 'power' among mages except by
> trials of battle. my preference for style is that of Simon Iff,
> (cf. Crowley) so I can't be sure of my relative power.
There is no need to compare power levels. Tzimon often attempts to trap
his perceived opponent into using battle imagery, but why not change
that tune? Why not shift that paradigm? Why not declare the most
powerful mage in the cosmos to be the one who gives the gentlest and
most snuggly hugs?
> 3) I tend to think that the 'controlling the cosmos' bit is a
> personal perspective with a skewed bias -- becoming part of
> the Way, the most powerful mages may well appear from the
> outside and the inside to be controlling the cosmos, but
> this may be an illusion on account of their relative position.
>
> # If not, then why should anyone take heed of what you say?
The merit-badge paradigm, the hero paradigm, the battlefield victory
paradigm, the my-kung-fu-is-better-than-your-kung-fu paradigm, the
winner-take-all paradigm -- they are all summed up in this question, no
doubt sincere:
"are you one of 'the most powerful mages' controlling the cosmos?
if not, then why should anyone take heed of what you say?"
My answer is to overturn the premises of a 'most powerful mage' of
'controlling the universe' and of 'taking heed' of what another says.
Here's a simple way to free yourself. Get two CD players. Put one on
your left and one on your right. On one cue up "Imagine" by John lennon
and on the other cue up "Subterranean Homesick Blues" by Bob Dyan. Set
the volume on both to maximum. Close your eyes. Listen!
imagine there's no heaven i wonder if you can don't follow leaders watch
your parking meters imagine all the people living in harmony you don't
need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
> # Am I the unique avatar of Bhairava? No, I doubt it. Is Josh the
> # avatar of Ganesha? I don't think so... but only he and Ganesha
> # really know.
>
> if he isn't and you don't think he is, then what is the value of
> defending his statement? why don't you just say 'I disagree and
> think nagasiva and catherine's expressed skepticism is warranted,
> though at times overly hostile.' and be done with it?
Hey, i don't think i have been "hostile" at all! Hurt by Josh, yes, and
concerned when i've seen others hurt by him, and disgusted with Josh's
smug insistence that he hurts people "for their own good" -- but
hostile? No. I simply reiterate that if Josh Geller is the avatar of
Ganesha, he will demonstrate the qualities of Ganesha in his person.
Ganesha never acts like a schoolyard bully; Josh does. Ergo, Josh is not
the avatar of Ganesha. (He may, on the other hand, be the avatar of
Tommy, the big strong freckle-faced boy who used to beat up the smaller
and weaker kids on the playground at Will Rogers Elementary School in
Santa Monica, California and steal their lunch money circa 1955-57 ...
THAT i could believe!)
cat, just another human being
catherine yronwode ------------------------ mailto:c...@luckymojo.com
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Karezza and Tantra Yoga ----- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
news:alt.lucky.w --- discussions on folk magic, luck, amulets, charms
Dennes Longoria
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
| Tyagi is not the only one who remembers Josh's past harshness to others
| who have claimed special spiritual status. There is, in fact, an entire
| web page devoted to people's theories about why Josh tells folks to
| "shut up and go away," theories ranging from the fondly amused to the
| outrightly angry. If Josh has changed, let HIM say so. We who have
| functioned as his erstwhile punching bags deserve to know whether he's
| safe to play with now, if he is, so to speak, a kinder, gentler Josh.
| (I, for one, would welcome it, for i have always felt him to be soulful
| at the core.)
I just want to say, i'm not taking sides... I like both tyagi and josh,
and do believe that the change in josh is real, but i don't think he
was ever mean-spirited, even when telling people to shut up and go away.
if i recall, he explained those were spiritual instructions, and not to
be taken literally. i don't think that he's joking. and i don't understand
why tyagi has to be the defender of the weak... why can't they defend
themselves... he doesn't like others to stand up for him, so why is
he standing up for others, why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
i would suggest a chess match instead of some senseless bloody battle....
Octinomos 9=2
________________________________________________________________________________
The entire Christian Bible , creation legend , descent into and exodus from
"Egypt," ark and flood allegory , Israelite "history," Hebrew prophecy and poet-
ry, Gospels, Epistles and _Revelation_ imagery , all are now proven to have been
the transmission of ancient Egypt's scrolls and papyri into the hands of later
generations which knew neither their true origin nor their fathomless meaning.
Long after Egypt's voice , expressed through the inscribed hieroglyphics , was
hushed in silence, the perpetuated relics of Hamitic wisdom , with their cryptic
message utterly lost, were brought forth and presented to the world by parties
of ignorant zealots as a new body of truth. The only new thing about it was the
pitiable exegesis that inspired and accompanied the reissuance. -Alvin Boyd Kuhn
Lisa Gardner
catherine yronwode wrote:
[...]
>Change *may* be a sign of growth. Change *may* be a sign of progress.
>And growth *may* be a sign of progreess. But change may *also* be a sign
>of shrinkage. Change may *also* be a sign of disintegration. Growth may
>*also* be a sign of disease.
And disintegration and disease may also be the means through
which change and important learning takes place. Y'know?
>Staying the same *may* be a sign of stagnation. Staying the same may
>*also* be a sign of fidelity and loyalty.
>
>It is very important, when discussing philosophical matters as deep as
>these, to not mistake the map for the territory, and to never accept
>embedded premises.
>
>In this case, Tzimon claims that it is possible that Josh has changed.
>He further embeds the premise that change is "a sign of growth and
>progress" [presumeably toward a goal] -- and therefore concludes that
>this change in Josh is a sign of growth and progress on Josh's part.
[...]
Change is change. It's how the individual decides to meet and incorporate
the change that really determines whether that change leads to
learning and progress, or to something else.
>I have a great deal of compassion for Josh. I sense that you are trying
>to explain something about him to us between the lines, but i don't know
>what it is. Having never met Josh, i only know him as a blustery,
>inconstantly rude and friendly, rough-edged, knowledgeable net-presence.
>"By their fruits ye shall know them." Those are the fruits he has shown
>me. [...]
Josh is an asshole sometimes. He's been an asshole to me before,
on the net.
He's also the *only* person from netland who actually took the time
to *call me on the phone* and spend 30 min. talking to me the last
time I found myself taking another walk through hell (as I do
periodically). It helped me considerably.
To me, that says an *awful lot* about josh and his capacity for
compassionate action.
>Who suffered "the slings and arrows of arm-chair know-it-alls" here?
>Tyagi and i, whom Josh claimed were at the spiritual level of dogs ...
>or tyagi, who merely doubted that a man as cruel as Josh is the avatar
>of a notably kindly deity? [...]
Oh, christ.
"a man as cruel as josh"? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
I find josh to be rather joyful, myself, and I like him quite a lot. He
knows this, or at least I hope he knows it.
I'd hardly call him cruel.
>I can! I do! Here and now: "I know and i can say that Josh is not the
>avatar of Ganesha."
I am undecided as to whether josh is or is not the avatar of
ganesha, myself. He may be. I haven't made up my mind about
this yet.
Lisa
Sagana
Lisa Gardner wrote in message <92241432...@news.remarQ.com>...
>And disintegration and disease may also be the means through
>which change and important learning takes place. Y'know?
If I might introduce a tiny bit of Tantric philosophy here (I'm not sure if
alt.magick.tantra is a place where this may be safely done anymore, since
the people who "own" the group tend to get very upset every time the subject
comes up, and I do *not* have time to read through posts of 30K+ length
before I go to work every day):
The ideas of creation and destruction, disintegration and reintegration, are
polarities as illusory as every other set of apparent opposites. Both are
necessary facets of a single process which, in and of itself, is *neither*
creation nor destruction. The process is perhaps best summed up by the term
"lila". I can't recall and English equivalent to this concept offhand, so
I'll use that word.
What seems like disintegration (pralaya) is really just one face of this
lila, as is integration. All things, ourselves included, are affected by
this lila. What appears to be terrible trauma, falling apart, mental
breakdown, etc., is just the manifestation of this lila within ourselves.
Ultimately, there is no relative value to any face of lila.
The sages of Tantra (and other aspects of the mystic as well) have often
exhibited bizarre behavior. The most advanced amongst them have exhibited
behavior termed "unmatta" (insane!). They have been known to laugh loudly
for no apparent reason, to get down on all four and roar like bulls, to
wander naked through the streets. To someone on the outside, this appears
inexplicable, and thus is brushed off with a judgment of madness. Madness,
though, is really just a failure to conform to certain social norms.
It is really a sign of progress, however. It can be used to advantage,
certainly.
>Change is change. It's how the individual decides to meet and incorporate
>the change that really determines whether that change leads to
>learning and progress, or to something else.
Absolutely. Lila itself means "play". Games change over time; sometimes
the new rules are seen as cheating, and sometimes as an improvement. All
such valuations are relative to the observer. It's very much like an
elaborate dance... is it a misstep or a new step? It all depends,
ultimately, on whether or not one can keep dancing, or if one falls over and
just lays there, unable to get up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tzimon Yliaster
Tools of CHAOS
http://www.xiqual.com
PO Box 26362,
San Francisco, CA 94126
nigris (333)
do what you please.
On Thelemic Philosophy: Ethics
Dennes Longoria/Octonomouse:
#># i don't understand why [nagasiva] has to be the defender of
#># the weak...
333:
#> because I care and they are weak.
sole...@oath.com:
# Leaning heavily on Chapter II and ignoring Chapter III, eh, Thelemite?
that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration in
my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of the Law").
my will is my way.
#># why can't they defend themselves...
#>
#> because they are weak.
# If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is
to procure assistance from more powerful beings.
# Is it truly your Will to intervene in this manner?
must be. you can only tell if it is if it has happened. if it has
happened, then it was my will.
# ...How do you confirm that these "defenses" you wish to
# perform are truly in alignment with your True Will...[?]
I never made that claim. the result of my act determines whether
they are aligned to my (true!) will.
#># he doesn't like others to stand up for him, so why is he
#># standing up for others,
#> because I am strong and do not need it, nor do I like ad
#> hominem discussion.
# ...You are standing up for others because you are strong
# and don't like personal attacks?
no, that would be an overstatement.
# ...what is it that motivates you to intervene on behalf
# of others, presumably unasked?
compassion
#># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
#>
#> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
#
# I am curious how you have ascertained that they are undeserving
# of abuse.
nobody deserves abuse. surprise and impersonal assaults upon one's
character are merely rude and aggressive, violating. I have
ascertained it through my biased personal assessment. it is a
statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless against
ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
love is the law.
333
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
(emailed replies may be posted); cc me your replies
see also http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html
Dennes Longoria
| 49990326 IIIom
|
| do what you please.
|
| On Thelemic Philosophy: Ethics
|
| Dennes Longoria/Octonomouse:
| #># i don't understand why [nagasiva] has to be the defender of
| #># the weak...
|
| 333:
| #> because I care and they are weak.
but maybe they don't see it that way. that is just your perception.
they might see their situation entirely differently. you are
dictating for them how they should interpret themselves.
let them decide how they want to interpret themselves.
maybe they chose their non-response to bullying for
reasons that you and i don't understand. could
be that they're masochist and you're interfering
with their ability to feel pain and abuse.
|
| sole...@oath.com:
| # Leaning heavily on Chapter II and ignoring Chapter III, eh, Thelemite?
|
| that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration in
| my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of the Law").
| my will is my way.
we're all ultimately alone in this world. you can only help so much.
bottom line is they still have to struggle on their own regardless...
|
|
| #># why can't they defend themselves...
| #>
| #> because they are weak.
|
| # If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
|
| that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is
| to procure assistance from more powerful beings.
did they ask for assistance? or did you decide they needed
assistance and you know what's best for them better than they do...
|
| # ...what is it that motivates you to intervene on behalf
| # of others, presumably unasked?
|
| compassion
or self-aggrandizement....
|
|
| #># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
| #>
| #> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
| #
| # I am curious how you have ascertained that they are undeserving
| # of abuse.
|
| nobody deserves abuse. surprise and impersonal assaults upon one's
| character are merely rude and aggressive, violating. I have
| ascertained it through my biased personal assessment. it is a
| statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless against
| ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
to defend themselves. what's going to happen when you're
not around and can no longer defend them. better if you
instructed them on self-defense than doing it for them...
Dennes Longoria
Dennes Longoria
nagasiva
(Dennes Longoria) argues for doing nothing in the face of oppression:
# could be that they're masochist and you're interfering
# with their ability to feel pain and abuse.
when they complain about my defense I'll happily withdraw it.
>| #># why can't they defend themselves...
>| #>
>| #> because they are weak.
>|
>| # If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
>|
>| that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is
>| to procure assistance from more powerful beings.
# did they ask for assistance? or did you decide they needed
# assistance and you know what's best for them better than they do...
you're mixing your tenses here. I watch for signs of floundering
or of blatant flams by the 'regulars'.
>| #># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
>| #>
>| #> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
>| #
>| # I am curious how you have ascertained that they are undeserving
>| # of abuse.
>|
>| nobody deserves abuse. surprise and impersonal assaults upon one's
>| character are merely rude and aggressive, violating. I have
>| ascertained it through my biased personal assessment. it is a
>| statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless against
>| ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
# you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
# to defend themselves....
I'm not stopping them.
nagasiva
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
(emailed replies may be posted); cc me your replies
Ishvarah Farber UD
Dear Dennis,
If I were you, I wouldn't mess with Shiva Deva, here.
He's got a mean left hook, and I don't think you have the same kind of
relationship with the cops that I do.
My best,
Ish
Ishvarah Farber UD
Ishvarah Farber UD <dcl...@best.com> wrote:
>Dear Dennis,
Cara Snr Longoria,
A thousand pardons for the misspelling of your Name.
You are one of the best, Dennes. Don't ever forget it.
Ish.
Dennes Longoria
| Dear [Dennes],
|
| If I were you, I wouldn't mess with Shiva Deva, here.
|
| He's got a mean left hook, and I don't think you have the same kind of
| relationship with the cops that I do.
|
| My best,
|
| Ish
i'm not messing with nobody. i'm simply asking questions...
and i said according to immigration, you do not legally
change your name until you go to court. that's just a fact.
Dennes Longoria
| In article <7dib82$rao$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
| Ishvarah Farber UD <dcl...@best.com> wrote:
|
| >Dear [Dennes],
|
| Cara Snr Longoria,
|
| A thousand pardons for the misspelling of your Name.
|
| You are one of the best, Dennes. Don't ever forget it.
|
| Ish.
i'm just happy to be alive.
peace, and don't worry, me and nagasiva are friends....
check it out, he taught me how to alter the spelling by myself....
aikeena
>
> # you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
> # to defend themselves....
>
> I'm not stopping them.
>
> nagasiva
But are you helping them to do so?
aikeena
Ishvarah Farber UD
Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote:
> In article <7dib82$rao$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, dcl...@best.com
> (Ishvarah Farber UD) wrote:
>| Dear [Dennes],
>| If I were you, I wouldn't mess with Shiva Deva, here.
>| He's got a mean left hook, and I don't think you have the same kind of
>| relationship with the cops that I do.
> i'm not messing with nobody. i'm simply asking questions...
> and i said according to immigration, you do not legally
> change your name until you go to court. that's just a fact.
Indeed it is, sir.
It is not all that widely known that there are different classes of
citizens in these United States.
I don't see why it shouldn't be widely known, personally.
There really isn't too much wrong with the American system. There are
a number of inequities that need to be corrected, and we do need to be
taking our responsibilities as World Hegemon more seriously, but there
isn't a country I'd rather live in.
Best All Ways,
Dr. Farber
-ZZ
wrote:
>There really isn't too much wrong with the American system. There are
>a number of inequities that need to be corrected, and we do need to be
>taking our responsibilities as World Hegemon more seriously, but there
>isn't a country I'd rather live in.
Do you see Clinton as Philip, or more like the boy Alexander?
-ZZ
Ishvarah Farber UD
Dennes Longoria
| There really isn't too much wrong with the American system. There are
| a number of inequities that need to be corrected, and we do need to be
| taking our responsibilities as World Hegemon more seriously, but there
| isn't a country I'd rather live in.
the system is great, theoretically, except that religion
and politics are not really kept separate in practice.
and i believe genocide is occurring in the form of making
people drink alcohol because that's the only legal high.
but i'm more worried about conquering my mind, any way....
Octinomos 9=2
________________________________________________________________________________
The adept is then master to the zelator, and the zelator assisteth
and honoreth the adept. Yet unless these relations were manifest,
even the most intelligent observer might be perplexed as to which
was which. This is called the Crown of Mystery. bk. 157, xxvii.2
Dennes Longoria
In article <7di5ir$i...@bolt.sonic.net>,
ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com (nagasiva) wrote:
| (Dennes Longoria) argues for doing nothing in the face of oppression:
I'm arguing that it's force being applied to the oppressing agent, and
therefore the oppressed remain weak, and are encouraged to stay weak
since you alleviate the cause of their pain.
| # could be that they're masochist and you're interfering
| # with their ability to feel pain and abuse.
|
| when they complain about my defense I'll happily withdraw it.
why would they complain? people are lazy, they don't like to struggle
on their own... they're more than happy that you come to their aid. But
if you truly cared about them becoming strong, you might act on _them_,
giving them tools, giving them knowledge or resources, forcing them
to deal with the situation and not simply vanishing the symptom which
has surfaced because there's an oppressing agent. eliminate the
oppressing agent and the symptom goes away, but they remain in
essence weak and unaltered, until the next oppressor comes along.
| # did they ask for assistance? or did you decide they needed
| # assistance and you know what's best for them better than they do...
|
| you're mixing your tenses here. I watch for signs of floundering
| or of blatant flams by the 'regulars'.
it's just my style. i'm not writing this to win a grammar contest.
| # you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
| # to defend themselves....
|
| I'm not stopping them.
by eliminating the oppressor, in effect you _are_ stopping them
from having to do it on their own and get strong from it...
Octinomos 9=2
________________________________________________________________________________
The adept is then master to the zelator, and the zelator assisteth
and honoreth the adept. Yet unless these relations were manifest,
even the most intelligent observer might be perplexed as to which
was which. This is called the Crown of Mystery. bk. 157, xxvii.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2, by FileCrypt 1.0
iQCVAwUBNv813dqF1zt2Z8bFAQGFYgP/fTIH3uGHixY29dYmeIw7yfCumZ0/mVj5
b/mGQVGd3ALEfCZM7FHnuCeEFaO35tWa36juxPx9dOq87e488dmcQzTviJ4ug7Pt
9mbZJg2diHmSMsRkL3rYY4p2RDdyQr74qNAFPy/b8jLDydbaPvVGnzzMSrUaqkm4
Z3U9cEzzp/o=
=onCc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sole...@oath.com
Tyagi is CCed on the reply.
> From: ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com (nigris (333))
> [...]
> > Leaning heavily on Chapter II and ignoring Chapter III, eh,
> > Thelemite?
>
> that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration
> in my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of
> the Law"). my will is my way.
Good enough. Ignoring the wisdom of your predecessors does at least have
the quality of being original.
> > > > why can't they defend themselves...
> > >
> > > because they are weak.
> >
> > If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
>
> that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is to
> procure assistance from more powerful beings.
And how has the desire for this procurement been communicated to you, that
you become thusly procured?
> > Is it truly your Will to intervene in this manner?
>
> must be. you can only tell if it is if it has happened. if it
> has happened, then it was my will.
Apparent Will and True Will are often divergent, in my experience.
> > ...How do you confirm that these "defenses" you wish to
> > perform are truly in alignment with your True Will...[?]
>
> I never made that claim. the result of my act determines
> whether they are aligned to my (true!) will.
Good enough. Experimentation is the best way to produce observations from
which conclusions may be drawn, lessons learned, and wisdom gained. I cede
the point. You are operating within the philosophy that action is better
than inaction. Honorable.
> > ...what is it that motivates you to intervene on behalf of
> > others, presumably unasked?
>
> compassion
You're a Democrat, aren't you?
> > > > why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
> > >
> > > because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of
> > > abuse.
> >
> > I am curious how you have ascertained that they are
> > undeserving of abuse.
>
> nobody deserves abuse.
I am curious how you have ascertained that nobody deserves abuse.
> surprise and impersonal assaults upon
> one's character are merely rude and aggressive, violating.
I disagree only with your use of the word 'merely' here; it also posesses
other traits, such as being motivational, inspiration, and the source of
many important lessons in this world.
> I
> have ascertained it through my biased personal assessment.
Good enough. I question the thoroughness of your assessment. Care to
examine it with me? One useful thread consider is the series of
after-effects which will manifest as a result of providing defense in a
situation for which none is asked.
> it
> is a statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless
> against ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
On its own, this statement is fine, but I'm sure you realize that it
creates a circular argument as regards this thread. "I do A because of B
and I say B is true because I am someone who does A."
Best regards,
185
"Pick your rules and stick to 'em, and the light will reveal itself."
- Michael J. Rae
Love is the law, love under will.
Solemnus, P.M.S.L. 185, W.W.B.D.
sole...@oath.com
Please send FILE ATTACHMENTS to sole...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8813/
(There are no pop-up banners at this Geocities site)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
nagasiva
uncited:
>> # you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
>> # to defend themselves....
nagasiva wrote:
>> I'm not stopping them.
aikeena <nguy...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>> nagasiva
>But are you helping them to do so?
see for yourself.
nagasiva
nagasiva
(Dennes Longoria):
>I'm arguing that it's force being applied to the oppressing agent, and
>therefore the oppressed remain weak,
I don't follow this logic. protection of the weak from obliteration
allows them to develop more gradually such that they can weather
the bluster of stronger storms. it is the way of parents to protect
their children, for example.
I'm arguing that the weak are truly incapable of self-defense and
need sheltering if they are to grow and exercise their defenses.
I think my point is so well-supported in nature that the argument
against it seems ludicrous.
>and are encouraged to stay weak since you alleviate the cause of
>their pain.
if I engaged this every time. you have forgotten context. newbies
are like new shoots into the air. putting a small protective cup
over them only allows them to get their footing.
>| # could be that they're masochist and you're interfering
>| # with their ability to feel pain and abuse.
ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com (nagasiva):
>| when they complain about my defense I'll happily withdraw it.
>why would they complain?
because masochists would not like my removing their source of pleasure.
>| # you're not allowing them to get strong and to learn
>| # to defend themselves....
>|
>| I'm not stopping them.
> by eliminating the oppressor, in effect you _are_ stopping
> them from having to do it on their own and get strong from it...
your projection. by initial protection I never try to 'eliminate
the oppressor', only minimize the first impression of being
unwelcomed. it is like preventing your rude uncle from slapping
guests as they walk in for the first time. after they have been
warned and understand the offensive character of those present,
then they will be more capable of understanding the context and
meaning of the assault. then they are on their own unless they
directly ask. I may provide them with a copy of my killfile.
nagasiva
Lisa Gardner
nagasiva wrote:
>49990329 IIIom
>
>(Dennes Longoria):
>>I'm arguing that it's force being applied to the oppressing agent, and
>>therefore the oppressed remain weak,
>
>I don't follow this logic. protection of the weak from obliteration
>allows them to develop more gradually such that they can weather
>the bluster of stronger storms. it is the way of parents to protect
Yep. And possibly it isn't only and primarily the development of strength
that Tyagi is concerned with, anyway. But Tyagi will have to answer
this for himself.
Y'know, I *was* certainly one of the "weak" for most of my life. Now
I'm learning how to be stronger. I'm almost certainly one of the ones
Crowley would have liked to see re-incarnated immediately... so it's
a bit hard for me to go along with this whole idea of "immediate
reincarnation for the weak", as I do believe (and it took me long, long
time to get to this point) that I have value as a person. I had the
*potential for strength*, but not the reality of strength, for most of
my life. And who would have known that potential was there? No
one, until it started to manifest itself a tiny bit.
.... and just what do we mean by "strength", here, anyways? Is
a person's personal "strength" always the best reason for "allowing"
his human existence to continue? What if he's got other attributes that
fit in well with the larger human picture? What if he just needs to be
around to provide atmosphere for another human or humans in that
lifetime? Or a lesson for another? Or a lesson for himself? There
may be many reasons for the existence of a certain person in a
certain place at a certain time, or many good reasons to "allow"
the existence of that person. "That person is strong" is not the
only one, IMHO.
Life's more complicated than an Ayn Rand book IMHO, where we're
all either "strong" and beautiful, admirable, etc. or "weak", and a
pathetic idiot.
And thank god for that, man, that god sees fit to develop his characters
psychologically a little bit more than does Rand. It makes the whole
life-book a little more interesting and liveable.
Lisa
nigris (333)
do what you please.
> > > > > why can't they defend themselves...
ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com (nigris (333)):
> > > > because they are weak.
> > > If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com (nigris (333)):
> > that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is to
> > procure assistance from more powerful beings.
> And how has the desire for this procurement been communicated
> to you, that you become thusly procured?
sometimes they are assisted even without communication of desire.
the screams and departures of the repeatedly injured communicated
to me the need for a defense and an outcry.
> > > Is it truly your Will to intervene in this manner?
> > must be. you can only tell if it is if it has happened. if it
> > has happened, then it was my will.
> Apparent Will and True Will are often divergent, in my experience.
are you saying that true will can be thwarted? if not, then are you
saying that something can occur which is not the true will? if not,
then anything that happens is the true will (as compared to the
apparent and projected or imagined will that never comes to pass).
> > > ...How do you confirm that these "defenses" you wish to
> > > perform are truly in alignment with your True Will...[?]
> >
> > I never made that claim. the result of my act determines
> > whether they are aligned to my (true!) will.
> You are operating within the philosophy that action is better
> than inaction. Honorable.
no, only that I am acting. sometimes I do not act. example: last
night I did not act when my partner was away missing something
she wanted to see. it was my will to refrain from calling out
to her to apprise her of the situation. she was very upset that
I did that. I acted in ignorance, and discovered its depth later.
in other words, I don't think that the true will is justified
merely because it is such, but the true will can never be
thrwarted as I understand it because it is the Will of God
(the combined intention of the entire cosmos).
> > > > > why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
> > > >
> > > > because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of
> > > > abuse.
> > >
> > > I am curious how you have ascertained that they are
> > > undeserving of abuse.
> >
> > nobody deserves abuse.
>
> I am curious how you have ascertained that nobody deserves abuse.
it is my personal and biased assessment based in part on having
been the object of abuse and having abused others.
> > surprise and impersonal assaults upon
> > one's character are merely rude and aggressive, violating.
> I disagree only with your use of the word 'merely' here; it also posesses
> other traits, such as being motivational, inspiration, and the source of
> many important lessons in this world.
here we simply disagree. many would justify the idiocy of a number
of men of 'crazy wisdom' who go around beating random people up
that have never agreed to any sort of relationship with the man
(contrast this with those who engaged structured relationships
such as a variety of zen masters described as beating their students
or people like Gurdjieff or others who treated their chelas with
some degree of harshness). to the extent that these or even any
of the reputed 'real masters' abused the occasional stranger in
the name of 'instruction' I say that they are deluded and cruel
and I do not count them amongst those whose 'education' I find is
at all valuable to the world. in short, I oppose their methods.
> > I have ascertained it through my biased personal assessment.
> Good enough. I question the thoroughness of your assessment. Care to
> examine it with me? One useful thread consider is the series of
> after-effects which will manifest as a result of providing defense in
> a situation for which none is asked.
I have described my motivations elsewhere to Octonomouse. they are
of limited scope and interest. possible repercussions are not that
important to me as compared to the likely repercussions which I have
witnessed several times within forums where there is a self-possessed
'instructor' who hits people (verbally) over the head as they enter.
it merely betrays their own immaturity or unbalanced state. what I am
contending is the wisdom of countless religious and mystical
traditions and I do not feel that I am saying anything unusual here.
> > it
> > is a statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless
> > against ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
> ...this statement ...creates a circular argument ....
> "I do A because of B and I say B is true because I am
> someone who does A."
A - defend the weak
B - compassion
plug it in and see how it isn't circular. my actions are only
of limited interest (to me) here as compared to the principles
of Thelema and how they can be used to encourage and promote
abuse of others and a complete abdication of responsiblity for
the suffering of others ("it is my will to 'instruct' you" and
"this will hurt me more than it hurts you"). I've heard the
same things from those (including my parents) who engaged
physical and psychological abuse. I oppose it and I don't know
what more I can say than this. violence begets violence. let
it end with me as I stand in the path of the violent and
ground the blows into my person. as regards words of offense
and verbal assault, I can handle them fine and will continue
to do so in response to my compassion for the weak.
free love right now!
Dennes Longoria
In article <7doi39$1...@bolt.sonic.net>, sp...@arkaotika.abyss.com wrote:
| I don't follow this logic. protection of the weak from obliteration
| allows them to develop more gradually such that they can weather
| the bluster of stronger storms. it is the way of parents to protect
| their children, for example.
you mean custodial parents. non-custodial parents have no way
of protecting their children. the children will just have
to survive without them. humans just have to adapt and
make the best of whatever situation. parenting the way
you describe it is a thing of the past. not all children
have the protection of both parents available--yet no
one seems to be dying because of it. every one makes it.
| I'm arguing that the weak are truly incapable of self-defense and
| need sheltering if they are to grow and exercise their defenses.
| I think my point is so well-supported in nature that the argument
| against it seems ludicrous.
if it was so ludicrous. you wouldn't be spending this much
energy trying to refute it. you know i'm right. people
only get strong when they face struggles on their own.
| >and are encouraged to stay weak since you alleviate the cause of
| >their pain.
|
| if I engaged this every time. you have forgotten context. newbies
| are like new shoots into the air. putting a small protective cup
| over them only allows them to get their footing.
you want them to be your little children that you can control
and manipulate. you want them to be dependent on you.
leave them be. you're not their mother or father.
| >why would they complain?
|
| because masochists would not like my removing their source of pleasure.
so you agree that they're masochist and therefore you _are_
impeding them from fulfilling their true will.
| > by eliminating the oppressor, in effect you _are_ stopping
| > them from having to do it on their own and get strong from it...
|
| your projection. by initial protection I never try to 'eliminate
| the oppressor', only minimize the first impression of being
| unwelcomed.
they're not your children to protect....
Octinomos 9=2
________________________________________________________________________________
The adept is then master to the zelator, and the zelator assisteth
and honoreth the adept. Yet unless these relations were manifest,
even the most intelligent observer might be perplexed as to which
was which. This is called the Crown of Mystery. bk. 157, xxvii.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2, by FileCrypt 1.0
iQCVAwUBNv/nDtqF1zt2Z8bFAQEdsAP/eax6/FV032QylSlBi3SbnGREbkm2YUzI
06VUQ7IVC+Od9acPDPdJ7wusf5jbD4qVlFDOw6xYT3kEUBJ8wskA6X0c09XlUOzZ
OzPQqtmwdoaOgdziFTPaGczkGQwZeN0atypx1uRofefPF0WUh0fh7CyuJ8uU7BRl
Bq09SOSBEH0=
=TjbS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeffery Marshall
Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote in
message news:dennes-2903...@a138003.san1.as.crl.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <7doi39$1...@bolt.sonic.net>, sp...@arkaotika.abyss.com wrote:
>
> | I don't follow this logic. protection of the weak from obliteration
> | allows them to develop more gradually such that they can weather
> | the bluster of stronger storms. it is the way of parents to protect
> | their children, for example.
>
> you mean custodial parents. non-custodial parents have no way
> of protecting their children. the children will just have
> to survive without them. humans just have to adapt and
> make the best of whatever situation. parenting the way
> you describe it is a thing of the past. not all children
> have the protection of both parents available--yet no
> one seems to be dying because of it. every one makes it.
Are you projecting any personal bias into the discussion? No need to reply,
just a question you may want to consider.
Are all children making it? Why is the life expectancy of an inner city
black male continuing to drop? Could there be a correlation between this
average life expectancy and the incidence of unwed mothers?
>
> | I'm arguing that the weak are truly incapable of self-defense and
> | need sheltering if they are to grow and exercise their defenses.
> | I think my point is so well-supported in nature that the argument
> | against it seems ludicrous.
>
> if it was so ludicrous. you wouldn't be spending this much
> energy trying to refute it. you know i'm right. people
> only get strong when they face struggles on their own.
Hmmm. Freidereck Nietzche? "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger"?
AOI
Jeff
k...@springhaven.org
>| the oppressor', only minimize the first impression of being
>| unwelcomed.
>they're not your children to protect....
> and honoreth the adept. Yet unless these relations were manifest,
> even the most intelligent observer might be perplexed as to which
> was which. This is called the Crown of Mystery. bk. 157, xxvii.2
*lol*
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Josh O'Brien
>
> 49990329 IIIom
>
> (Dennes Longoria):
> >I'm arguing that it's force being applied to the oppressing agent, and
> >therefore the oppressed remain weak,
>
> allows them to develop more gradually such that they can weather
> the bluster of stronger storms. it is the way of parents to protect
> their children, for example.
An old (spartan?) culture used to leave newborn infants on a hillside
overnight. They would collect the ones that lived and bury the ones that
died.
-ZZ
<bo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>An old (spartan?) culture used to leave newborn infants on a hillside
>overnight. They would collect the ones that lived and bury the ones that
>died.
Greeks other than the Spartans practised exposure.
Generally the point was to kill the infant, and usually it was girls
who were exposed rather that boys. Patrilineal cultures...
-ZZ
Renfield >for you<
Population control.
Girls make more people. Boys don't.
-Renfield
Dennes Longoria
| Are you projecting any personal bias into the discussion? No need to reply,
| just a question you may want to consider.
yes inasmuch as everyone does it to some extent. no, in that i tried
to speak generally and not about my case or any other in particular.
just the blanket statement was made that 'parents protect their children',
and in today's world, not all parents are able to, especially if they've
been completely shut out of their children's lives. it's just a fact.
| Hmmm. Freidereck Nietzche? "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger"?
i don't think that's an exact quote...
Octinomos 9=2
________________________________________________________________________________
Jeffery Marshall
Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote in
message news:dennes-3003...@a138006.san1.as.crl.com...
> In article <KPSL2.635$8X3....@news.flash.net>, "Jeffery Marshall"
<mag...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> | Are you projecting any personal bias into the discussion? No need to
reply,
> | just a question you may want to consider.
>
> yes inasmuch as everyone does it to some extent. no, in that i tried
> to speak generally and not about my case or any other in particular.
> just the blanket statement was made that 'parents protect their children',
> and in today's world, not all parents are able to, especially if they've
> been completely shut out of their children's lives. it's just a fact.
Is it possible to seprate our experiences from our 'worldview'? Are we the
sum total of our experiences or are something more? Perhaps herein lies the
value of cyberspace. A multitude of people, with different experiences
interact dynamically, hence "sharing" experiences. Thus, your experience
in a way also becomes my experience and thus modifies my world view. I am,
thus, something more than my experiences alone.
>
> | Hmmm. Freidereck Nietzche? "That which doesn't kill us makes us
stronger"?
>
> i don't think that's an exact quote...
Perhaps not, I was going from memory. It's been about 20 years since I read
Nietzche. But I think the quote/paraphrase is perhaps close to what you
were saying. How relevant is Nietzche to today?
AOI
Jeff
Dennes Longoria
"Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
| > | Are you projecting any personal bias into the discussion?
| > no, in that i tried
| > to speak generally and not about my case or any other in particular.
| Is it possible to seprate our experiences from our 'worldview'?
to some extent.
| Are we the sum total of our experiences or are something more?
a lot more. our spirit essence is eternal, therefore
unaffected by any temporal matters. *
| Thus, your experience in a way also becomes
| my experience and thus modifies my world view.
perhaps, if i had been talking about my experience, but i wasn't.
i was speaking in general. i spoke objectively, as an observer.
| I am, thus, something more than my experiences alone.
* see above.
| How relevant is Nietzche to today?
you misspelled Nietzsche....
Jeffery Marshall
Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote in
message news:dennes-3003...@a138006.san1.as.crl.com...
> In article <vI4M2.210$J_6...@news.flash.net>,
> "Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> | > | Are you projecting any personal bias into the discussion?
>
> | > no, in that i tried
> | > to speak generally and not about my case or any other in particular.
>
> | Is it possible to seprate our experiences from our 'worldview'?
>
> to some extent.
Perhaps to some extent. But I think we all interact with things external to
us through a membrane. For some, the membrane is very permeable, for others
it's almost impermiable. I've often thought the process of initiation
and/or consciousness expansion serves to change the permeability of the
membrane. Perhaps this membrane also separates the conscious mind from
other parts of the mind and it's permeability can be changed as well.
>
> | Are we the sum total of our experiences or are something more?
>
> a lot more. our spirit essence is eternal, therefore
> unaffected by any temporal matters. *
Is it? How do you know this? Perhaps the whole point of existence on
planet Earth is to learn something. This learning then would affect our
spiritual essence. I'd like to agree that we have a spirit essence that
trancends our experience here, but my membranes are not sufficiently
permeable to say so with certainty. I doubt, therefore I am<g>.
>
> | Thus, your experience in a way also becomes
> | my experience and thus modifies my world view.
>
> perhaps, if i had been talking about my experience, but i wasn't.
> i was speaking in general. i spoke objectively, as an observer.
Is anyone ever totally objective?
>
> you misspelled Nietzsche....
Ah now the secret's out! I can never be Wiccan because I can't spell<g>.
Thanks for the thoughts!
AOI
Jeff
Dennes Longoria
"Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
| Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote...
| > "Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
| > | Is it possible to seprate our experiences from our 'worldview'?
| > to some extent.
|
| Perhaps to some extent. But I think we all interact with things external to
| us through a membrane. For some, the membrane is very permeable, for others
| it's almost impermiable. I've often thought the process of initiation
| and/or consciousness expansion serves to change the permeability of the
| membrane. Perhaps this membrane also separates the conscious mind from
| other parts of the mind and it's permeability can be changed as well.
ultimately, what ever i've experienced has become an integral
part of me i suppose, but i do not think that my experiences
are the only ones that are valid. i try to remain objective
when discussing issues, and try to set aside any personal bias.
i think it's impossible for anyone to be totally unbiased, but
i honestly try my best. and i'm asking that others also try to
consider differing view points before making blanket statements.
| > | Are we the sum total of our experiences or are something more?
| > a lot more. our spirit essence is eternal, therefore
| > unaffected by any temporal matters. *
| Is it? How do you know this? Perhaps the whole point of existence on
| planet Earth is to learn something. This learning then would affect our
| spiritual essence. I'd like to agree that we have a spirit essence that
| trancends our experience here, but my membranes are not sufficiently
| permeable to say so with certainty. I doubt, therefore I am<g>.
actually, i don't think there's a point of existence, per se. maybe
the point is that there _is_ no point. you could also think of our
spirit essence as pure energy, which has been measured scientifically,
so when we die, the energy that makes us what we are doesn't just
vanish, it is reintegrated into the cosmos in its pure form. i've
read enough to give me a sense of the validity of my claim and it
was not merely metaphysical but scientific in nature.
| Is anyone ever totally objective?
ayn rand? ;>
| > you misspelled Nietzsche....
| Ah now the secret's out! I can never be Wiccan because I can't spell<g>.
to answer your previous question, yes, i think Nietzsche is very
much relevant to today--since ignorance is still quite predominant...
| Thanks for the thoughts!
don't mention it... your post was truly a challenge.
i don't know if i did it justice, but i've tried... take care,
Jeffery Marshall
Dennes Longoria <den...@INJURIOUS.crl11.ADVERT.crl.POLICE.com> wrote in
message news:dennes-3003...@a138006.san1.as.crl.com...
> In article <9L7M2.377$J_6...@news.flash.net>,
> "Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
> | Is anyone ever totally objective?
>
> ayn rand? ;>
Hmmm are speaking about her assertion there is no such thing as altruism or
something else?
I've given a lot of thought to the altruism model. *Generally* speaking I
think she's right. Alturism is pure Agape and I'm not sure most people are
capable of pure Agape. Now perhaps it's my Masonic background speaking, but
I think there are a few that have reached this state. I guess the reason I
say Masonic backgound is that in a certain part of the Entered Apprentice
lecture, the new EA is told about a ladder reaching from earth to heaven,
the three principle rounds of which are faith, hope and charity. He is then
told the greatest is charity for it extends beyound the grave throughout the
boundless realms of eternity. Charity is simply the way the King James
version of the Bible translates Agape. I think they used "charity" rather
than "love" because of a fear people would confuse Agape with common
romantic love. The passage of course parallels I Corinthians 13:13. Now
I'm not a fan at all of many Paulene writings, but here I think he has a
point. As you no doubt know, Paul doesn't mention the "beyond the grave
throughout the boundless realms of eternity".
I guess the point is that if we liken the ladder to expanding consciousness
and what I said about the ego as a membrane, then perhaps some people do
eventually reach a state of Agape and hence altrusim. I must confess that
rung has so far eluded my grasp.
> to answer your previous question, yes, i think Nietzsche is very
> much relevant to today--since ignorance is still quite predominant...
What kind of ignorance? Spiritual? Academic or something else? How does
Nietzsche's work act against it/provide illumination? Is there any such
thing as enlightenment?
>
> | Thanks for the thoughts!
>
> don't mention it... your post was truly a challenge.
> i don't know if i did it justice, but i've tried... take care,
Sure you have. As I'm sure you've gathered, I'm not speaking solely of your
post and how your experience has colored it, but rather of any post here.
Your's was simply the focal point for discussion.
AOI
Jeff
Dennes Longoria
"Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
| > to answer your previous question, yes, i think Nietzsche is very
| > much relevant to today--since ignorance is still quite predominant...
|
| What kind of ignorance?
ignorance of human nature.
| Spiritual? Academic or something else? How does
| Nietzsche's work act against it/provide illumination?
by showing how morality is anti-nature.
JOHN SCHANBERGER
"nigris (333)" wrote:
> On Thelemic Philosophy: Ethics
<Heavy sniping with Scissors engraved "Thelema">
> # Leaning heavily on Chapter II and ignoring Chapter III, eh, Thelemite?
>
> that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration in
> my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of the Law").
> my will is my way.
Hmph! What's the point of being Thelemian if you are just going to
rewrite the thelemian text? <<Shrug>> Ah, what are ya going to do...
> # ...what is it that motivates you to intervene on behalf
> # of others, presumably unasked?
>
> compassion
II:48 Liber Al
Read and then apply this formula to the text:
Man=ADM=45(English Gemetria)=not=LA(Hebrew)=AL=God
Interesting, Eh?
>
> #># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
> #>
> #> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
What could be said here: Who defines what is weak? Who defines what is
strong? Perhaps an individual has a talent which I am in need, but he is
in need of protection - in which case it would be in my best interest.
On the flip side - Who defines what is weak; Let Ra-Hoor have his way
with them and of it wash your hands.
I am just as likely to look at both lame dogs and put them BOTH out of
their misery - because it is merely because.
The law is love, love under will.
-ZZ
<r...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Greeks other than the Spartans practised exposure.
>>
>> Generally the point was to kill the infant, and usually it was girls
>> who were exposed rather that boys. Patrilineal cultures...
>
>Population control.
>
>Girls make more people. Boys don't.
More a matter of financial control really.
A male child would bring a dowry into the family.
A female one would take wealth away.
-ZZ
Patrick Schaaf
Population control. However you phrase or implement it.
Patrick
nigris (333)
# Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
The word of Sin is Restriction.
"nigris (333)":
# > that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration in
# > my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of the Law").
# > my will is my way.
JOHN SCHANBERGER <jonm...@home.com> :
# Hmph! What's the point of being Thelemian if you are just going to
# rewrite the thelemian text? <<Shrug>> Ah, what are ya going to do...
LOL! there is no single Thelemic text. I don't know about no
'Thelemians'. I never said I was a Thelemian or a Thelemite.
# > #># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
# > #>
# > #> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
# What could be said here: Who defines what is weak? Who defines what is
# strong?
I do as regards my actions!
# Perhaps an individual has a talent which I am in need, but he is
# in need of protection - in which case it would be in my best interest.
# On the flip side - Who defines what is weak; Let Ra-Hoor have his way
# with them and of it wash your hands.
# I am just as likely to look at both lame dogs and put them BOTH out of
# their misery - because it is merely because.
the death of because! and his little dog(ma) too!
Invoke me under my stars.
# The law is love, love under will.
blessed beast!
333
wisdom
Dennes Longoria wrote in message ...
>In article <KPSL2.635$8X3....@news.flash.net>, "Jeffery Marshall"
<mag...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
>| Hmmm. Freidereck Nietzche? "That which doesn't kill us makes us
stronger"?
>
>i don't think that's an exact quote...
>
same exact words but Nietzche wrote formally and didn't use contractions
or rather did not use contractions =-)
"doesn't" > "does not"
but give the man a break, he spelled Neitzche correctly
--wisdom
wisdom
wisdom wrote >
>but give the man a break, he spelled Neitzche correctly
>
>--wisdom
>
>
N i e t z S c h e
boy do I feel silly
Will
>
> In article <KPSL2.635$8X3....@news.flash.net>, "Jeffery Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> wrote:
> | Hmmm. Freidereck Nietzche? "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger"?
>
> i don't think that's an exact quote...
I think the exact quote is in German, so . . .
Mardon Soiruk
protect the unprotected. Defend the weak. It is always wrong to attack
someone who is not able to defend themselves! Love IS the law , love under
will. I too have edited the book in ? it is My will to do so, NO work is
complete nor self contained. As I have even edited the Bible for My own use
:)~ in My Christian days.... sigh. a waste of time.
BLESSED BE!
Mardon Soiruk
Networking URL http://www.angelfire.com/in/werewolf/bookoflight.html (For
personal networking database list)
nigris (333) <ty...@arkaotika.abyss.com> wrote in article
<7dgna5$6...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> 49990326 IIIom
>
> do what you please.
>
> On Thelemic Philosophy: Ethics
>
> Dennes Longoria/Octonomouse:
> #># i don't understand why [nagasiva] has to be the defender of
> #># the weak...
>
> 333:
> #> because I care and they are weak.
>
> sole...@oath.com:
> # Leaning heavily on Chapter II and ignoring Chapter III, eh, Thelemite?
>
> that scrap heap of an Evul Book is not worth my consideration in
> my activity. that is why I EDITED IT (to "The Booklet of the Law").
> my will is my way.
>
>
> #># why can't they defend themselves...
> #>
> #> because they are weak.
>
> # If they are to do as they wilt, what would be the outcome?
>
> that depends on the circumstances. sometimes their will is
> to procure assistance from more powerful beings.
>
>
> # Is it truly your Will to intervene in this manner?
>
> must be. you can only tell if it is if it has happened. if it has
> happened, then it was my will.
>
>
> # ...How do you confirm that these "defenses" you wish to
> # perform are truly in alignment with your True Will...[?]
>
> I never made that claim. the result of my act determines whether
> they are aligned to my (true!) will.
>
>
> #># he doesn't like others to stand up for him, so why is he
> #># standing up for others,
>
> #> because I am strong and do not need it, nor do I like ad
> #> hominem discussion.
>
> # ...You are standing up for others because you are strong
> # and don't like personal attacks?
>
> no, that would be an overstatement.
>
>
> # ...what is it that motivates you to intervene on behalf
> # of others, presumably unasked?
>
> compassion
>
>
> #># why not just everyone stand up for themselves?
> #>
> #> because they are weak, unexpecting and undeserving of abuse.
> #
> # I am curious how you have ascertained that they are undeserving
> # of abuse.
>
> nobody deserves abuse. surprise and impersonal assaults upon one's
> character are merely rude and aggressive, violating. I have
> ascertained it through my biased personal assessment. it is a
> statement I make as a defender of the weak and helpless against
> ruffians and hoodlums as I am able.
>
> love is the law.
> 333
> --
> ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
> (emailed replies may be posted); cc me your replies
> see also http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html
>